PURPOSE: To determine whether the VF-11 is a valid scale to measure visual functioning in an Asian population with vision impairment. METHODS: Participants from the Singapore Malay Eye Study (SiMES) took part. Visual functioning was assessed by using the VF-11 (a modified version of VF-14 for an Asian population). Rasch analysis was performed on 618 participants with presenting visual acuity < 6/12 in the better eye. RESULTS: Disordered thresholds were initially evident, indicating that the categories were difficult to discriminate and required category collapsing (from 5 to 4) for nine items. The removal of two misfit items related to driving resulted in a fit of the VF-9 data to the Rasch model (chi(2) = 50.5, df = 27, P = 0.005). There were no more misfit items. The person separation reliability value was 0.82 which demonstrates that the VF-9 has sufficient ability to discriminate between at least two groups of participants with different levels of visual functioning. The VF-9 significantly differentiated patients stratified by visual acuity demonstrating adequate criterion validity. All items were free of differential item functioning, and there was no evidence of multidimensionality. Targeting of person ability and item difficulty was suboptimal, although this is inevitable in a population-based survey where most people would not be disabled. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Rasch-modified VF-9 scale achieved fit to the Rasch model, its suboptimal targeting suggests that the instrument does not have the range of items to assess the impact of vision impairment across the severity spectrum of vision loss in this population.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the VF-11 is a valid scale to measure visual functioning in an Asian population with vision impairment. METHODS:Participants from the Singapore Malay Eye Study (SiMES) took part. Visual functioning was assessed by using the VF-11 (a modified version of VF-14 for an Asian population). Rasch analysis was performed on 618 participants with presenting visual acuity < 6/12 in the better eye. RESULTS:Disordered thresholds were initially evident, indicating that the categories were difficult to discriminate and required category collapsing (from 5 to 4) for nine items. The removal of two misfit items related to driving resulted in a fit of the VF-9 data to the Rasch model (chi(2) = 50.5, df = 27, P = 0.005). There were no more misfit items. The person separation reliability value was 0.82 which demonstrates that the VF-9 has sufficient ability to discriminate between at least two groups of participants with different levels of visual functioning. The VF-9 significantly differentiated patients stratified by visual acuity demonstrating adequate criterion validity. All items were free of differential item functioning, and there was no evidence of multidimensionality. Targeting of person ability and item difficulty was suboptimal, although this is inevitable in a population-based survey where most people would not be disabled. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Rasch-modified VF-9 scale achieved fit to the Rasch model, its suboptimal targeting suggests that the instrument does not have the range of items to assess the impact of vision impairment across the severity spectrum of vision loss in this population.
Authors: Eva K Fenwick; Ryan E K Man; Gwyn Rees; Jill Keeffe; Tien Y Wong; Ecosse L Lamoureux Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ecosse L Lamoureux; Manjula Marella; Benjamin Chang; Mohamed Dirani; Au Eong Kah-Guan; Audrey Chia; Terry L Young; Tien Y Wong; Seang Mei Saw Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Robert P Finger; Eva Fenwick; Peggy Pei-Chia Chiang; Michael Petrak; Frank G Holz; Manjula Marella; Ecosse L Lamoureux Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Eva K Fenwick; Ryan E K Man; Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung; Charumathi Sabanayagam; Ching-Yu Cheng; Kumari Neelam; Jacqueline Chua; Alfred T L Gan; Paul Mitchell; Tien Y Wong; Ecosse L Lamoureux Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Michael W O'Dell; Grace Kim; Lisa Rivera; Robert Fieo; Paul Christos; Caitlin Polistena; Kerri Fitzgerald; Delia Gorga Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: Jacqueline Chua; Blanche Lim; Eva K Fenwick; Alfred Tau Liang Gan; Ava Grace Tan; Ecosse Lamoureux; Paul Mitchell; Jie Jin Wang; Tien Yin Wong; Ching-Yu Cheng Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Richard N McNeely; Salissou Moutari; Samuel Arba-Mosquera; Shwetabh Verma; Jonathan E Moore Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ioanna Mylona; Vassilis Aletras; Nikolaos Ziakas; Ioannis Tsinopoulos Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 3.390